Photo By Heimokramer, via Wikimedia Commons creative commons license.
When I wrote about my apathy towards the Edmonton arena debate, I never thought it would be a spark to an epic tome about apathy blocking an honest debate and blocking the search for viable alternatives to a publicly funded arena. That's exactly what it did. And apparently there are too many people just like me.
After reading my fatalistic take on the arena, Ric at Oilers Blog used it as a call to action:
The gig has been managed so smoothly – only one potential site offered, Northlands cut off at the knees a la Braveheart, a funding model that has been static for the last three years – we only have two options: Buy in with the mogul or lose your team.
Derek may not have been despondent enough.
But is he right to react in such a manner? Shall cynicism rule the day? Is it "nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them"?
That depends on our ability to develop a viable alternative.
Ric walks through alternatives like public offerings and alternate locations, discusses the lack of honesty in the debate and presents a very impassioned view on the new arena. While I appreciate and respect his view, it doesn't change my overall point. Everything he's pointed out is very useful to the debate, and if it were Long Island or Seattle, his arguments would have a public stage. But the arena ship has already sailed.